Kimi K2.6 vs. Claude Opus 4.7
Kimi K2.6 launched last week on Product Hunt, 4 days after @Claude by Anthropic Opus 4.7.
How do they really compare? The @Kilo Code team ran the comparison. They gave both models the same workflow orchestration spec and reviewed the code. Here's what review turned up.
Key takeaways
Claude Opus 4.7 ran 31 tests, all green. 1 real bug.
Kimi K2.6 ran 20 tests, all green. 6 confirmed issues.
Claude Opus 4.7 scored 91/100 at $3.56
Kimi K2.6 reached 75% of this score (68/100) at 19% of the cost ($0.67)
As pointed out in another thread comparing @MiniMax M2.7 with Opus 4.6, [1] the gap between open-weight and frontier models has narrowed significantly over the past year. For prototyping or exploring a design, the $0.67 run is a good deal. For work requiring correctness and accuracy, Opus 4.7 remains ahead.
Any experiences coding with open-weight models?
Replies
Can you do Sonnet 4.6 vs Kimi K2.6. This would be more appropriate comparison cost-wise imo.
Given that I'm not trusting a LLM with writing all my code without me watching closely over it, having such a performance at a fraction of the cost is really impressive!
I see how people use minimax or kiwi for code review and other operations that don't really touch the code. Then they prepare a descriptive report with the findings and pass it to Opus for the real implementation. This way, they save from tokens and give "another point of view" while reviewing
Is everyone now just getting VC backing and creating there own AI's and datacenters?
Nice breakdown. Indie dev here — I build desktop apps, AI scrapers, and complex stuff. Kimi is amazing for prototyping at 19% of the cost. But for production where correctness matters? Claude still wins. Gap is closing, but not closed yet.